Fire in the Bones

January 25, 2011January 25, 2011 / Peter Mead / 4 Comments

I respect all preachers in history and across the globe today who suffer for preaching God’s Word. Many of us reading this blog face nothing of the persecution that many preachers have had to endure. Sometimes our biggest struggles seem to be coping with disappointing response in the lives of those listening, or perhaps filtering slightly tactless feedback at the door of the church. But still, even in the ease of our experience, many of us do face something. It is nothing compared to what others may face, but it is something nonetheless.

We face the repeated decision to stand up and preach again. Most preachers can speak about the sense of feeling battered in ministry. There is the work of preparation, the prayerful work of hoped for response, the draining work of giving of yourself, the sometimes tiring work of processing feedback from people oblivious to how vulnerable you may feel at that point. Sometimes this can all add up to a significant level. The combination of personal, spiritual, emotional, relational and physical expenditure, alongside the reality of spiritual warfare, can leave us drained.

What then? What do we do next? Do we give up? Do we quit the ministry? Sometimes that may be a very real temptation for some of us. Do we lay low and pour ourselves into something safer for a while? Do we avoid interaction with people? There are any number of possible responses to ministry drain on a weekly basis.

My thoughts sometimes go back to Jeremiah’s words in chapter 20. He went through it and suffered deeply. He was drained and wiped out and had no natural resource left. Tempted to remain quiet, he could not. Not because he loved preaching. Not because he wanted affirmation (he got none). Not because he needed the income. He could not because “there is in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I am weary with holding it in, and I cannot.” He could not because the LORD was with him.

Do you get up and preach again because you love preaching? Or because you need affirmation? Or because of some other self-gripped motive? Or, or do you get up and preach again because God is with you and you cannot keep inside what He has given to you?

Tired? You’re not alone. Let’s press on.

Reading Letters

January 24, 2011January 21, 2011 / Peter Mead / 2 Comments

The epistles are generally a form of discourse. That is to say, they tend to be a direct form of communication (as opposed to narrative or poetry). This might imply that they are there to be studied so that I can figure out the main point. But when I read a contemporary letter I tend to look for more than just the bottom line. I tend to look for two things, and this applies when interpreting epistles too:

1. I tend to look for the message, or even the bottom line of a letter. What is this person specifically saying to me? I don’t want to read several hundred words as if they are all equally valuable, but disconnected nuggets of information. I do want to figure out what the main point or points are in the letter.

2. I tend to look for their heart coming through toward me. Are they loving, or polite, or cold, or complaining, or angry? Whether it is a complaint from somebody, or an encouragement from a friend, or a notification from a company, there is always more than pure information in a letter.

When we look at the biblical letters we do well to look for both things. What is the main point of each section? And what is the heart of the writer toward the recipients?

Technically this isn’t about finding the main idea (1) and finding the mood (2), as if these are separate and distinct items. The mood, the heart, combines with the information included to determine my sense of the main idea.

If we have been trained to do so, we tend to read narratives with imagination and sensitivity. We tend to read poems with a certain level of imagination and responsiveness. The danger is that we will read discourse as pure information, where we would be far better being alert to the affective tone of the communicator. Isn’t all human communication affective in one way or another?

Shine the Light on the Core Issue

January 21, 2011January 12, 2011 / Peter Mead / 3 Comments

It struck me afresh recently that many in our churches may be missing a very crucial element of Christianity.

They know the answers, they’ve prayed the prayer, they go to church, they live good lives, they may even witness (or they know that they should), they have grown to enjoy Christian gatherings, they see the emptiness of the world’s alternatives, they can explain the gospel, they look the part, they serve the church, they teach the children, they give to the collection, they make sacrificial decisions, they pray and they mean it and on it goes. So much Christianity wrapped up in one life, but yet, what is missing?

Christ.

Christianity is not religion, nor is it ecclesiology, nor is it church participation, nor moral and ethical living, nor family tradition, nor schedule commitments, nor participation in a social gathering, nor any number of other things people seem to make it. Christianity is about being in relationship with Christ.

When I first met my future wife and then returned home to England I spoke about her to folks here. I remember one particular conversation. I was enthusing about the person who I thought I might actually get to marry. He was melancholic about the whole concept of relationships. I shared information about her. He shared complaints about the whole structure of dating and courting and marriage in his experience. I talked about her. He had yet more to say about the “institution” of romance.

I suppose you could observe that we were talking about the same thing. The difference was that I was captivated by a person, he was not.

I wonder how many in the church today are ticking the boxes and we all assume they are safely in the family of God, but actually they are not. One of the most overlooked verses in all of Scripture is in 1Cor.16 where Paul states that “if any man does not love Christ, he is accursed.” Perhaps we should be far slower to assume people are already born again based on the indicators of their confession, conduct and church participation. Perhaps we should be looking for that delight that comes only from someone who knows someone special. And perhaps in our preaching we should look for ways to shine the light of the Word beyond the peripheral issues, through the created “christian” structures that people hold to be their faith, and show the empty place where Christ should be captivating the heart and changing everything from the inside out.

Every Conviction is Biblical – Applicational Faux Pas

January 20, 2011January 12, 2011 / Peter Mead / 3 Comments

People have an amazing ability to miss the point and make a point out of a minor point. This seems to be especially prevalent in church world. Here are some approaches people use, maybe people in your church. Look for ways to gently and sensitively correct these approaches as you preach, while also modelling appropriate application of the text.

A. The Selective Normative Detail Approach – If it is in there, automatically copy it. I include the term “selective” since nobody can apply this consistently. One person may choose to have a conviction about how to pray before eating based on the feeding of the five thousand, but they may not see the need to apply the same approach to the size of seated groups when a large gathering is to be fed. It is amazing what details in a narrative can become normative for some.

B. The Selective Absence as Normative Approach – If it is not in there, don’t allow it. Again, this has to be selective because consistency would not be possible. So since guitars are not mentioned, they may be deemed inappropriate, but many churches holding convictions about guitars are fine with carpet in the room. Preferences are preferences. They need not be considered biblical and moral convictions.

C. The Equal Weight Normativity Approach – This is where every detail is considered equal. If something is mentioned as a narrative detail, then it is considered as normative as a pattern or an instruction. After all, it is in the Bible!

D. The Ridiculous Application of Detail Approach – I’ve covered this already really, but I just want to underline it with another category. One church springs to mind. They felt they had to meet at 11am rather than 10:30am, because in the Bible it says, “when the hour had come, they…”

Feel free to add to the list . . .

It is amazing what people will do with the Bible, and what they miss by focusing on this kind of thing. But if we, as preachers, don’t model and instruct otherwise, nothing will change.

Every Conviction is Biblical – Training in Application

January 19, 2011January 12, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Last time we raised the issue of how easily people take a biblical detail and turn it into a deep conviction. Consequently as preachers we have a responsibility to train people to appropriately apply the Scriptures. So many are so good at being so focused on misapplied details that they fail to respond to the intended message of the text. So, three thoughts about application in our preaching:

1. Do it. As I’ve said and written many times, we must not abdicate our role by simply handing over to God the matter of “applying the truths we have seen in His Word.” He does, and He uses us as part of that. Some people in our churches are fascinated by the Bible and will chat about historical and linguistic and cultural and all sorts of other details with us. Yet they may never move on to applying the Word to their lives. We must model that understanding is not enough. What does it mean? And also, how should I respond to this?

2. Expand it. Don’t always offer the same applications – be good, be better, try harder, witness more, pray more, etc. For one thing this is moralism rather than Christianity. But also be sure that your applications aren’t always to do lists. People in some churches get overwhelmed with lists of hints for better living and are scared by their Bibles, not because of the awesome God they might encounter in its pages, but because of the ticker tape parade effect if they open their Bible and the half sheets of bulletins with to-do lists should spray out and cover their living room floor. Application is not just about conduct and behavior. It is also about beliefs – show people that changing their belief system in light of Scripture is critical application. It is also about affections and values – show them that having their heart moved is the deepest and primary need in responding to a personal God revealing Himself in the pages of Scripture.

3. Restrict it. Application of the Bible can easily be carelessly done (especially, it seems, in the area of convictions about how things should be done). As preachers we need to implicitly, and sometimes explicitly, help people to learn how to apply the Word. This will involve pulling people back from wrong approaches, as well as training in right approaches. I paraphrase Haddon Robinson’s comment that “there is more heresy per square inch in the area of application than in any other aspect of Bible study.”

In the next post I want to offer some approaches to application that we should be careful of and train people to avoid.

Every Conviction is Biblical

January 18, 2011January 12, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Many Christians will readily admit that they struggle to apply the teaching of the Bible to their own lives. Strangely though, very few will admit that their convictions may not be thoroughly biblical. Every church, every tradition and every denomination has its own little quirks and unique approaches to things. What is true of churches is true of the people in the churches too. The problems come not from having quirks, but from defending them as biblical when in fact they are not.

How should the church service proceed, how should it be led, how should the music be handled, what is not acceptable in terms of instruments, what can happen in the church building on a Sunday, what time should the service begin, how exactly should the communion table be set out, how many cups can be used, and the list goes on. It is amazing what church details people will hold as strong biblical untouchable convictions. After all, they have a verse to support their position!

So it seems to me that preachers have a prime responsibility to guide, instruct and model in this minefield of application. Some preachers never apply. Others always offer the same applications (trust God, go share your faith, live good lives, etc.) But if we don’t go beyond this, then people will never learn to apply in the areas of the sometimes bizarre church convictions. Surely we want the people in our churches to be enjoying the fullness of personal relationship with the Trinity through Christ, rather than perpetuating sometimes bizarre convictions about all sorts of details and almost believing that Christianity consists in those convictions?

In the next post I want to share some thoughts on application in preaching, specifically in reference to the kind of “incidental detail of Scripture held as deep biblical conviction” that we sometimes come across. Hopefully there is none of this in your church. But don’t be surprised if there is.

Less of a Beating

January 14, 2011January 11, 2011 / Peter Mead / 3 Comments

It’s not true in every case, but for many people it is. Let’s say Person A has an issue with Person B. Perhaps Person A runs through how he might address Person B beforehand, or perhaps he is talking it through with his wife first. When Person B isn’t present, Person A tends to be much stronger in tone. But once they are face to face, Person A will typically be more winsome, more loving, more caring for the feelings of Person B. (There are exceptions, but let’s not get into psychologically profiling people who struggle interpersonally!)

There’s something in this that is analogous to preaching, I think. Let’s suppose you are preaching a biblical passage that contains an instruction from Jesus to his disciples. As preachers we have a tendency to turn any biblical text into an assault on the congregation. It could be encouraging, comforting, tender, sensitive, or gentle, but in the hands of an unthinking preacher, it will easily come across as harsh exhortation. Why does that happen?

I think there are various reasons for this phenomena including a misunderstanding of God, or of how people function, or are motivated, or what Christianity is, or often, just a lack of awareness of how we come across. But I wonder if there is also something in the difference between abstraction and in-person communication that I raised in the first paragraph?

We can easily take the words in a text and pull them out of their historical and interpersonal setting, turning them into a more harsh and abrasive instruction than was the case originally. Pulling an exhortative statement from its context and preaching it as bare instruction will usually feel more like the command that must be obeyed (drill instructor) than an instruction set in the context of interpersonal communication.

Did the disciples feel Jesus was barking out orders when he spoke to them of trusting in God, or of loving one another, or how they should pray, etc.? I suspect not. Somehow in person there would have been a more winsome force involved, the engagement of lives as the setting in which His instruction would have intrigued, motivated, drawn out, stirred, and moved them.

What to do? My suggestion is to be wary of excising the instruction from its narrative setting in order to preach it as instruction today. Better to help listeners imagine being there, being in the sandals of the disciples, feeling what they felt, stirring what stirred in them. Essentially it is about honouring the narrative force of the text rather than over-processing it into bite sized directions for today. Don’t treat every text as a mere collection of principles to be plucked out and fired at our listeners. Instead help the listeners to encounter the people in the text and to be stirred by that, very different, experience.

A Fear Worth Facing: Tipping Points and Similar Situation

January 13, 2011January 11, 2011 / Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Just one more post following up on this issue of whether it is appropriate for a preacher to endeavour to be engaging in their presentation – be that through manner and energy in delivery and/or passion and enthusiasm for content. I have been responding to the potential critique that it is up to the listener to hear and the preacher merely needs to faithfully speak the Word of God (especially since it is God’s work to change lives anyway).

One more post, two more points, then I’m done (but feel free to comment, agree, disagree, qualify, etc.)

1. Tipping Points. With a lot of these aspects of preaching I think there is a scale. At one end is reliance on God, at the other is communication ability on our part (which can be improved, hence I talk about it on here). While I would advocate for being the best steward of ministry opportunities that we can be, I would never affirm the idea of trusting in our own abilities rather than leaning fully on God. It’s as if there is a tipping point. A point at which seeking to be the best stewards of our ministry that we can be, we tip over and lean not on the Lord, but on our own ability, training, etc. If you sense yourself tipping away in the wrong direction so that you are not leaning on the Lord – stop! But actually, this scale and tipping point notion doesn’t really work. These are not mutually exclusive categories. It is possible to seek to improve my communication abilities to a very significant level, yet at the same time to remain fully leaned into the Lord. It is not true that to put 60% effort into communication improvement means my trust in God reduces to 40%. It seems like it is a matter of attitude. How is that measured? Surely in prayer and reliance upon the convicting work of the Spirit. Let’s all pray that we will be able to be the best preachers we can be, but at the same time, plead with the Lord never to allow us to trust in ourselves unawares.

2. Similar Situation. Until this point I have kept this series of posts focused on edificatory preaching of believers. But evangelism is not so different, is it? Only God can save a soul. Yet most of us see the problem with an evangelism approach that simply does not engage listeners. Perhaps you’ve seen offensive and incomprehensible shouters in a public place – not in the slightest representative of the winsome grace of God, yet always quick to point to their faithfulness in sounding forth God’s Word. Trumpets a blasting, but not a clear tone. We don’t rely on our ability to engage listeners in evangelistic communication, but surely we seek to be engaging, and clear, and biblical, and relevant . . . doing all we can so that if they choose to walk away from the gospel it will be the offense of the gospel, not the incompetence, incoherence, or objectionable nature of the messenger. Doesn’t the same apply in church preaching, not only because there will probably be unsaved present, but because it’s all part of the same ministry and great commission?

A Fear Worth Facing: Whose Responsibility?

January 12, 2011January 11, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Over the last couple of days I have written about the preacher’s fear of disengaged listeners. Yesterday I began to respond to the critique of those who might suggest the responsibility is that of the listener to “do the duty” and “have the discipline” to listen to God’s Word preached. My first response to that is somewhat pragmatic (“maybe that’s true, but if people struggle to listen, then why not do everything legitimate to help?”) and hopefully very pastoral (“my love for the listeners drives me to be as engaging as possible”).

Let me offer two more thoughts on this matter:

A. While “responsibility” may not be the best word for it, the issue of responsibility is not black and white. Whose responsibility is it that the sermon be heard? The listener’s? The preacher’s? God’s? I suppose the answer is … yes. On the one side, if a listener is disengaged during a sermon, the first place to look for cause may well be the heart of the listener. (I’m tempted to say that if too many listeners are disengaged during a sermon then maybe we should look at the preacher, but that would distract me from my point here!) On the other side, if a flock does not exhibit greater maturity over time, then it does not seem inappropriate to look at the shepherding that flock has received over time. That is to say, the “responsibility” seems to land on both sides. And at the same time we must know that unless God builds the house, or transforms the lives, then we labour in vain.

B. I don’t see any reason for preachers to abdicate their responsibility, as long as they pursue their ministry in total dependence on God. That is to say, I am responsible to handle the Bible well. I can’t preach error from the text and simply state that it is up to God to transform lives. I am responsible to preach a clear message. I can’t preach confusion and simply state that it is up to the listeners to sort through it (or point to one or two people who thank me afterward and therefore assert that God’s hand is on my ministry). I am responsible to preach relevantly. I can’t simply preach historical and distant content and finish by suggesting that the Spirit will apply to our hearts the truths we have seen in His Word. I am responsible to speak engagingly. I can’t simply blame listeners for not listening, or claim divine sanction to be as poor a communicator as possible so that God can get the glory.

Is God at work and am I totally dependent on Him in order for anything good to transpire? Yes. “Apart from me you can do nothing.” Is it the state of the listener’s heart that will influence how they hear? Yes. But at the same time do I have a stewardship in this ministry that behooves me to prayerfully and by faith do the best that I can? I would say so.

A Fear Worth Facing: Love Driven Preaching

January 11, 2011January 11, 2011 / Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday I wrote about the fear facing speakers that listeners will be disengaged. I’m sure some would read what I wrote and disagree, perhaps quite strongly. The critique would probably go along these lines:

Listening to the Bible being taught is the responsibility of the listener. It is one of the spiritual disciplines that we teach new believers. They should listen carefully, attentively and prayerfully. They should look for what the Word of God is saying to them. It is not about the preacher, it is about the Word of God. If there is a problem, it is their problem, for it is their duty to listen.

While I am uncomfortable with the tone of this kind of talk, I can see some truth in it. The parable of the sower is really the parable of the soils since the same sower and same seed has different results based on the “hearing” of the soil (heart) in which it lands. Certainly as a listener I remind myself that my issue with a preacher may well be, first and foremost, an issue with my own heart.

Yet as a preacher I find myself responding to this kind of comment with a pragmatic and pastoral response. While it may be true that listeners should listen, the fact is that they won’t if I am not being a good steward of the ministry opportunity. It is a privilege to preach God’s Word, and my delight in it and passion for it should engage listeners.

If I am lacking in key factors that will engage listeners, then I can critique them, I can make them feel guilty, I can harangue, I can pile on the pressure, but am I not choosing a self-protective rather than a loving approach? Surely the pastoral concern for the listener would drive me to do what I can to make the feeding a more engaging experience?

My wife loves our children and wants to feed them a healthy diet. And because she loves them she also makes the meals very palatable and enjoyable. I suppose she could harangue and pile on the guilt about starving millions and her sacrifice in preparing healthy instead of the easier junk options, but her love motivates her to make the food very good, as well as very healthy.

When it comes to the preaching event, there is a responsibility on the side of the listeners. But if I am a loving preacher, then surely I will do everything possible on my part to help them to engage with and hear God’s Word?